Iraq Situation is Bullshit by Succatash

According to Maniac and Kaythryn, there is no reason to accept responsibility. The past is past.

Well, here's some future for you. Let's turn over things to the UN, let's APOLOGIZE for the big mistake the U.S. has made.

Call me a whiner, but an $87 billion dollar invasion started on false pretenses is something to bitch about. So is all the people DYING.

Why don't you people wake up and use your brains instead of sit around and say, "Oh well, what happened, happened." Good hell.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 11:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hmmm... that's exactly what thye said about Vietnam. You're probably too young to remember, tho.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 11:43 AM

MANIACNUMBERONE

I never said people weren't responsible, but how likely is it that they are going to take responsibility? As evidenced by Bush's remarks on television last night, not very likely. We can wait for them to apologize, or to plead on bended knee to the U.N. for help, and it would be great if they did, but in reality they won't. I doubt if what we should be trying to do is to force the President or his administration into admitting their mistakes.

Like Kayt says, not productive to the Iraqi situation, but like Succatash says, a needed vent for built up rage at You-Know-Who. In the end, I guess venting anger is needed for the sanity of the browncoat populous.

-------------------------------------------
Who's winning?
I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 1:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
I doubt if what we should be trying to do is to force the President or his administration into admitting their mistakes. Like Kayt says, not productive to the Iraqi situation...

So, not complaining is being productive to the Iraq situation? It's better to just give up and let Bush do what he wants, because he won't change? What the hell are you saying?

This thread isn't just about venting, it's also hopefully educational and maybe somebody reading this might realize that Saddam is not responsible for 9/11 and George Bush is a big fat liar. If my bitching keeps just one person from voting for Bush in 2004 than I say it's productive as hell.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 1:33 PM

KAYTHRYN

Quote:
Posted by Succatash:
According to Maniac and Kaythryn, there is no reason to accept responsibility. The past is past.

Not what I said. But talking about going back in the past and changing events that have already taken place doesn’t help with what’s going on now. “If only we had done blah blah a few years ago then everything would be fine.” Well, the fact is, we didn’t do that, and unless one of you doesn’t mind lending out his or her time machine, we can’t change it, only try to fix it, work around it, or live with it.

Quote:
So, not complaining is being productive to the Iraq situation?

I don’t think that's what he was saying, and certainly not what I meant. I’m trying to say that if you don’t have anything new, helpful or productive to say towards what we should do, then don’t speak up just to whine. The only reason I'm not complaining about what’s going on is because I agree with the action we are taking, and I do plan on voting for Bush in 04.

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kaythryn:
I’m trying to say that if you don’t have anything new, helpful or productive to say towards what we should do, then don’t speak up just to whine.

Oh, okay Kaythryn. Thanks for the lesson on how to talk. Is that Jesus Christ I see standing behind you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 2:36 PM

KAYTHRYN

Quote:
Posted by Succatash:
Thanks for the lesson on how to talk. Is that Jesus Christ I see standing behind you?

Hey, anytime Tash. If you need anymore lessons just ask, I don’t mind a bit for a friend. And yeah, that was Jesus, he couldn’t stay but he wanted me to tell you he said “hi”. If you wanna hang around for a bit Buddha was planning on stopping by, I could even give you a short lesson on sarcasm while we wait.

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 2:47 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
What would be the best thing for us to do for them now? Would it be better to leave the Iraqi's in the middle of the disarray, or help them sort it out?

I've never heard anyone come up with a different, logical course of action, just lots of whining about why we shouldn’t be doing what we are doing, and I don’t see how that helps at all.

I'll take a shot here, how about instead of putting together a government there of people picked and chosen by the U.S., you start off with local area elections. Mayors and such. No interference in who gets to pitch their hat in, ex Baath party, Sunni, Shia, Kurd whoever. On a small scale have an internationally motinored fair election. Then this will be the point organization to help restore order, infrastructure, police , etc in that area. Police services can be restored in that area under this government, city services, etc.

The U.S. will provide resonable support, ie if it is something you can and want to help with fine. If not they say so and why and attempt a compromise. At any point, if that government says " you Americans are causing too much trouble, get out of my city " you do, until such time you are invited back in.

These administrative areas eventually elect repersentives for an Iraqi parliment, and they amongst theirselves elect a spokesman / leader.

The same rules apply, if they want to deal with you, cool. If they want you to go home, cool.

The only way out, is to let the reins go back to the people who live there. Just think how well recieved a force stepping in to punt Bush from power would be recieved.

In addition, I think any deals for reconstrution or oil should require approval from a independant Iraqi government before they are anyway close to binding.

" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 3:28 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"Well, the fact is, we didn’t do that, and unless one of you doesn’t mind lending out his or her time machine, we can’t change it, only try to fix it, work around it, or live with it"

Hey Kathryn, you forgot one important thing- we can LEARN FROM IT. I'm sure I don't need to quote Santayana? Doomed to reliving the past, and all that?

I have a brain damaged daughter, who for various reason has a hard time learning from the past. She refuses to acknowldge her part in how things turned out. It's frustrating and a little firghtening to see someone repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Translate that to the most powerful nation on earth. We're like babies waving a semi-automatic.

The FIRST thing I would suggest is that we stop supporting dictators. It just winds up being a blast from the past- like the Taliban and Saddam- ya know what I mean? We (you) have to ackowledge our role in creating those monsters:

"According to information obtained by the American Gulf War Veteran's Association, there is irrefutable evidence to show that the United States government provided ,...Anthrax, West Nile Virus and Clostridium botulinum" to Saddam.

"Ex-National Security Chief Brzezinski admits: Afghan Islamism Was Made in Washington
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski"

OK, got that in place?

The NEXT thing we need to do is stop panicking over every move towards economic justice and local control. We meet every land reform movement with bullets. Honestly! You'd think that we were tryin' to make the world safe for capitalism instead of safe for freedom!

The sad part about this is, you really think that dubya, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle et al really care a fig about you, me, or freedom. These people would gladly send thousands of troops to their death for an extra couple of dollars on a barrel of oil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kaythryn:
If you need anymore lessons just ask...

Hey Kaythryn, can you teach me the lesson you just learned from Signym?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 8:26 PM

LOTV

*stretch...* Don't mind me.. just plotting down a little bit of random, but slightly related info...

From the "Nuremberg Diary", a few thoughts from Nazi leader, Hermann Goering:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

...did I miss something? Only Congress can declare wars... umm Congress... Did you declare any war?

-Nope-

But the newspaper says "War In Iraq"... uh-oh... looks like a president overlooked his powers again
... tsk tsk tsk...

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 8:52 PM

"There are times it is necessary to go to war. This was not one of those times. Saddam did NOT have WMD. He did NOT pose an imminent threat to either us or his immediate neighbors. He was NOT involved in terrorist acts against the USA. We were NOT "fighting for our survival" when we invaded Iraq,"

This is the crux of the debate right here. Whether Saddam was a threat or not. The problem is, well, its the problem of smoking guns. They only smoke after they've been fired. And when you are talking about WMDs, thats a lot of peoples lives you are betting on here.

If Saddam did not have WMDs, why did he continue to jerk around the UN inspectors? Why did not a single foreign intelligence agency call the Bush administration on it, tell us that he had none? 1441 passed unanimously. The French, the Russians, the Chinese, all of them voted for the continuing of the inspections, which would be pointless if he had none. Hans Blix and Elbarade (? Head of the IAEA) reported that Saddam had not adequetly explained what happened to his arsenal after the first gulf war. No one gave him a clean bill of health.

We have not found them, and that is troubling. But then not long ago, several Chinese farmers uncovered some drums of mustard gas, that the Japanese had buried during WW2. That was 50 years ago, and they were simply buried in the dirt all this time. I hope that is all that is going on with them.

As to the oil, that does not make sense. Why not just deal with Saddam, like the French and the Russians did? A lot simpler, easier, heck of a lot less risk, both militarily and politically.

With the situation still fluid in Iraq, abandoning to the Saddam dead enders and terrorists from other nations is not an option. It is easy to see what would happen then, Saddam would come back to power, and we would end up with another 9-11.

You don't believe there were any WMD. You are betting a hell of a lot on your faith in Saddam. If it was just your life in the pot, I would not care one way or the other. But it ain't.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 9:02 PM

"We didn't bomb Iraq for humanitarian reasons, we went to remove weapons that don't exist."

Again, you are betting a ton of lives on your faith in Saddam.

But getting to the first point, they do go hand in hand. Was it humane to remove Saddam? I think it was, and something that should have happened after the invasion of Kuwait. A lot of Iraqis seem to think the same way. The stories of mass graves, children's prisons, plastics shredders used as execution devises, all that is gone.

It is not the intentions that make an action moral, its the consequences. In this case, our intention was to remove a potential threat to the US. As part of removing that threat, we need to stablize Iraq, help them make the transition from tyranny to democracy. In the end, the Iraqi people are better off, and so are we.

Whether the intention was humanitarian or not, the consequences will end up being just that. And ain't that what matters? Good intentions are called asphalt in Hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 9:17 PM

"Why don't you people wake up and use your brains instead of sit around and say, "Oh well, what happened, happened." Good hell."

The assumption is that simply disagreeing with your views indicates a lack of brain usage. That comes across as a bit arrogant.

We have a fundamental disagreement of fact here. You are in essense claiming as a fact that as of March 2003, Saddam had no WMDs, nor programs for developing any. Considering Saddam's past actions with the UN inspectors, this does not seem reasonable. This is at odds with the opinion of almost every intelligence agency in the UN, especially the Permenent Security Council. This is at odds with Blix and El-Baradae's reports prior to the campaign in Iraq.

I don't know. I am not in the CIA, I am not part of Saddam's inner circle. Those are the only folks who would know for certain one way or the other. I do know he had them, he had used them, and had not explained what happened to them as required by the armistice following the First Gulf War.

To conclude that Saddam simply did not have them, well, that does not seem reasonable, or logical. Just because we have not found them yet, after only 5 months? 12 years to hide, and you expect him to hide them where they can be easily found?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 9:29 PM

"Honestly! You'd think that we were tryin' to make the world safe for capitalism instead of safe for freedom!"

You seem to see these as unconnected. The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create. It is your right to sell it, keep it, throw it away, scribble on it, whatever you want.

What you call land reform quite often was little more than theft. The government confiscates, or steals your land that you had been working on for years, and hands it over to someone else. You no longer own the fruits of your own labors.

And if they can do it to him, what prevents them from coming around in a couple years and do it to you?

I don't know what you mean by economic justice, but it sounds a bit like stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Its something to do if you are Robin Hood, but you really want the sheriff deciding who is too rich and who ain't?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 9:32 PM

MANIACNUMBERONE

I think it's pretty logical to assume that if Saddam had WMD, than he would have used them on us. The reciprocal is prolly true too. Since he didn't use them on us, he prolly didn't have them. Why didn't he use them Drakon? Cause he's so nice?
I have to say too that our methods for gathering intelligence are far superior to those of Saddam. Unless the WMD are buried about 2 miles below ground, than we would have found them by now, with satellite imaging, which can easily penetrate buildings, bunkers, and even the ground itself to a certain depth.
Those weapons just ain't there folks.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 8, 2003 9:38 PM

"did I miss something? Only Congress can declare wars... umm Congress... Did you declare any war?"

This is a legal/semantic problem. Congress authorized both the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. For Iraq it happened back prior to the elections in Nov 2002. The authorization of military force in Iraq is the equivalent of a declaration of war.

The War Powers Act gives the President 90 days from the commencement of military operations before asking Congress's approval. Sometimes things happen so fast that immediate response is required. But that does not apply when the president gets approval beforehand, like happened here.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 1:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Drakon and all others in this thread, let me start out by saying this has been one of the most enjoyable discussions I've ever had on this hot-button topic! I think we deserve an award for being logical, staying on-point, and responding to each others viewpoints with a minimum of as hominen arguments.

YAAAAY!!!

Why did Saddam jerk the UN inspectors around? There are a couple of possible answers. I heard- but haven't looked it up- that USA troops destroyed several football-fields worth during the Gulf War. Exact amounts and types were not recorded because too much of the materials had "made in America" stamped on it. Saddam destroyed the rest, but also didn't record the destruction. It wasn't that there was evidence of an ongoing program, it was more of an accounting issue. But that was years ago. Most of the WMD have finite lifetime- Sarin, liquid anthrax, etc would have all deteriorated by now.

So why didn't he just open his country for inspection? I think that he may have been trying to keep his restive population and Iran guessing. As long as he MIGHT have weapons he believed that attack/ insurrection would be avoided. From what everything I've heard about Saddam, it would tempting to call him a paranoid schizo but his actions pretty accurately reflected Baathist Party politics. They took the art of backstabbing quite literally!

---------------------------
"The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create. It is your right to sell it, keep it, throw it away, scribble on it, whatever you want.

What you call land reform quite often was little more than theft. The government confiscates, or steals your land that you had been working on for years, and hands it over to someone else. You no longer own the fruits of your own labors."

Oddly, I think that people SHOULD own the fruits of their labors! It is one of my passionate and abiding beliefs! So if we're starting out with the same premise- how in h*ll did we get 180 deg out??

Perhaps we have different definitions? What do you define as "labor" and what do you define as "own"? I know it sounds trivial but would you humor me and let me know?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 3:56 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"And if they can do it to him, what prevents them from coming around in a couple years and do it to you?"

This is what I think bothers the world about current US policy.

Who will be safe? Where will it stop? Are you next?

These are questions that can be asked by other nations, or even by the citizens of this very country. National Security is a broad sword. So is Terrorism. So is Suspected Activity. So is Temporary.

You know... like Temporarily suspend civil liberties in the face of this Terrorist threat to National Security, based on your Suspected Terrorist Activities.

It is not un-American to wonder how broad these swords are, or when they will stop swinging.

It certainly isn't inappropriate for other nations to wonder the same thing.

--Anthony

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 4:06 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"If my bitching keeps just one person from voting for Bush in 2004 than I say it's productive as hell."

Is there a better candidate? I don't want to horse-trade my freedoms.

Is there a non-republican candidate who will respect my right to keep and bear arms?

--Anthony

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 6:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Howard Dean was against the Iraq invasion but is also against gun control.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 8:29 AM

MANIACNUMBERONE

I'd love to find a good candidate for president. Nathan Fillion maybe?

Does anybody else rememeber Rumsfeld coming on tv a month or two ago giving a pathetic excuse for why they hadn't found any wmd? - because they were most likely in mobile transport labs? That's sad. If those ever existed, they are long destroyed by now too.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 11:07 PM

I have heard many theories about the WMD issue since the end of active hostilities.

1) Sardinar: A person claiming to be KGB station chief in Romania states that the Soviets had a program called Sardinar to clean up chemical, biological and other illegal weapons programs that the Soviets had helped with. It was to dispose of the weapons, but leave the technical stuff, so that the programs could be quickly reconstituted.

2) Saddam's scientists lied, telling him that they had weapons when they didn't, because they were afraid of being killed.

While both and other theories sound reasonable, I just don't know. We are assuming that he never had them, since the first gulf war. We do know he had them beforehand, because of the dead Kurds and Iranians. It bothers me that they have not been found yet, (it makes me hope the Sardinar story is true) for different reasons than you. I think they were there, based on the fact that no one in the UN stood up and said he did not.

And at this stage of the political game, it no longer matters. If we do find them, and announce it, a large majority of those who believe there never was any will simply assume we planted the evidence.

Saddam was a nasty piece of work, and even if we went in for the wrong reasons, we still did a good thing by ousting him.

Okay, these definition are off the top of my head so bear with me. Labor: any action essentially, usually refers to actions which produce some material object. Mental labor never gets the respect it deserves, because you can't see it. All you can see is the outcome of the physical actions.

"Onwership" is a concept, one of those things like traffic lights which work because so many people buy into it. When you own something, it gives you the right to utilize that thing any way you desire or see fit. You own you, therefore you can do with yourself whatever you want, utilize your eyeballs for for watching Firefly, as an example. The only caveat I will place is that you do not use what you own to harm others. Hope this helps.

I think I understand where the difference is with the land reform issue. Usually, wealthy land owners of huge tracts of land subcontract the actual field work out to laborers. Pay them a wage for working land they own. The field laborer does not own the land he works, but instead exchanges his labor for wages, or a cut of the crop (sharecropping). Generally, this leaves the field hands less wealthy than if they owned their own land. That is problematic, and can slow economic growth as well as perpetuate a near aristocratic or semi-feudal type of system.

Which I think we can both agree is bad.

As with a lot of these debates, the goals are the same, its the means we differ over. How do you get the field hands up the economic ladder. I don't see theft as a viable solution, whether it is by the State or some other agency.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 11:13 PM

Good. So all we have to do is make it clear why we went after the Taliban and why we are fighting in Iraq. Its the "not getting blowed up" civil liberty that Dennis Miller talked about.

You are safe as long as you mean us no harm, or do not interfere with us going after those guys who want to kill us. This is as close as I can get right now, but it obviously needs to be clarified. Economic competition is not harmful, even if you are eating my lunch (selling to my clients)

The concerns about civil liberties are overblown I think, from my readings of the Patriot act and such. BUT, I really don't want to dissuade you from your concern, nor really taking action against it, (as long as you are not too successful) It is that concern that prevents the government from going too far.

Some changes in the law are necessary, especially in light of changing technology. And on the intel side, some of the Church commitee stuff has to go by the wayside, as we cannot afford to be that blinded anymore. But you are right to be concerned about it going too far.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:26 AM

I am not sure the Democratic party in general is trustworthy on the gun control issue. They have spent a great deal of the last decade slamming the NRA and other pro gun lobbies, and have shown no distain for gun control laws. (Sadly neither does Arnold here in California)

As for his (Dean's) position on Iraq, I am unclear what he would have done. Would he have stopped at Afghanistan? Would he have gone after Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria?

Its always easy to slam a guy for what he does, its a lot harder to come up with viable alternatives.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 10, 2003 5:25 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I think I understand where the difference is with the land reform issue. Usually, wealthy land owners of huge tracts of land subcontract the actual field work out to laborers. Pay them a wage for working land they own. The field laborer does not own the land he works, but instead exchanges his labor for wages, or a cut of the crop (sharecropping). Generally, this leaves the field hands less wealthy than if they owned their own land. That is problematic, and can slow economic growth as well as perpetuate a near aristocratic or semi-feudal type of system.

Which I think we can both agree is bad.

As with a lot of these debates, the goals are the same, its the means we differ over. How do you get the field hands up the economic ladder. I don't see theft as a viable solution, whether it is by the State or some other agency."

*****

I was intrigued by this tidbit. If we get all the lower rung people up the ladder, then who will clean the toilets? And what exactly will be their incentive for doing so? Who will stand out in the hot sun and cut sugarcane? Who will become sewage workers and telemarketers?

Why would they become these things? Because they dreamed of processing excrement ever since they were children? Their highest ambition was to bother people at dinnertime with attempts to peddle Long Distance bundles?

Is it bad to have people who are lower on the economic ladder? Is it bad to have people higher on the economic ladder?

Only if you can find some better, more universal motivation than earning money to buy goods and services.

If everyone owned a castle and 1000 acres of land, something BESIDES economic well being would have to be found to motivate them. The intrinsic goodness of mankind isn't sufficient to the task.

--Anthony

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 10, 2003 5:42 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Some changes in the law are necessary, especially in light of changing technology. And on the intel side, some of the Church commitee stuff has to go by the wayside, as we cannot afford to be that blinded anymore. But you are right to be concerned about it going too far."

I have to admit that I liked it better when some of these actions fell under the category 'Black Ops' and 'illegal surveilance' rather than being sanctioned by the force of law.

Once upon a time, the government did all sorts of bad things. They did these things because they believed they were right. They did them with the full understanding that if they were caught, it was someone's ass.

Now they can do many of these things legally. With little evidence. There may be repercussions if they are wrong, but it's no one's ass. It's completely within the law.

That's a somewhat frightening prospect.

--Anthony

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:20 AM

"Is it bad to have people who are lower on the economic ladder? Is it bad to have people higher on the economic ladder?"

Generally speaking, the answer to your first question is yes, and the second is no. What wealth is, is capability, how easy it becomes to accomplish a greater and greater variety of tasks. A rich man can construct a factory, pay workers to build it for him. A rich man can start his own independent space agency, and get off this rock. Poor folks can't do that.

You worry about grunt labor, as in who will clean the latrines and cut sugarcane. As history has shown, when labor becomes too expensive for a given task, using automation or mechanical means to do the same job become more attractive. Automatic cane harvesting or self cleaning toilets. They may be more expensive, but if they become competitive with labor, people will start buying them.

Which means that those laborers can then do other jobs, like designing spaceships as one example. Granted it required more education to design a spacecraft than clean a toilet, but I am not one that sees education as a bad thing.

There is a down side however that should be noted. Called the Fermi plague. The direction of technology is to do more and more with less and less. That includes less people to decide whether something is to be done or not. The risk is that a single person could be capable of destroying the entire population. This is one proposed solution to the Fermi Paradox.

"If everyone owned a castle and 1000 acres of land, something BESIDES economic well being would have to be found to motivate them. The intrinsic goodness of mankind isn't sufficient to the task."

I think we have different views of the "goodness of man" as well as economics. I don't see the point of a gun, or keeping folks intentionally poor to be good motivators, however they have been tried in the past. Economic self interest, or greed, has proven itself time and time again to benefit mankind.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:35 AM

"Is it bad to have people who are lower on the economic ladder? Is it bad to have people higher on the economic ladder?"

Two other points I wanted to make.
1) With more rich folks, and more wealth available, being created, this will tend to raise the wages of the poor laborers. It may not be in terms of dollars, but in availablity of affordable goods. Such that even though a poor person makes say 18,000 dollars a year, he still has a car, a house, a microwave oven, telephone service etc.

It is important to remember that rich and poor are relative terms, relative to each other. Rich folks have more money than poor folks, while the poor have less. What that money can do, that changes from year to year and new products and technologies come online. A thousand years ago, not even the King of England could buy a vial of penicillin.

2) There will always be "the poor" People have different desires, some folks can stick with 4 years in college, some of us will try to duck school and join the Navy. Some folks are highly motivated and self diciplined to run multi-national corporations, and some of us simply don't want the hassle and would rather spend time at home with our wives and children. So, some folks will do better than others.

The only way to prevent that, is to fix the rules such that the successful are penalized specifically for their success. This has a proven track record of not making more folks richer, but making everyone poorer. Why try if all you are gonna get is punished?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:43 AM

I would need a specific example of what you mean. From what I am seeing, the Fed still need a warrent, which means going in front of a judge. The new laws don't change the requirement for warrents and probable cause. And almost all of these powers were applicable before, in other areas of law enforcement.

There is an interesting debate over on the Reason magazine website. What I see as the most significant change is that the FBI can talk to itself about various aspects of terrorists investigations. As well as with other intelligence agencies. They can now go to public meetings for survellence, instead of being specifically excluded from such public meetings.

It is important to remember that everything costs. My respect for your rights comes at a cost to me. As long as the corresponding benefit is greater than my cost, I will continue. You pull a gun on me, my respect for your right to life goes out the window, since you are asking me to pay for your right, with my own life.

When the cost gets too high, people won't buy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:36 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Generally speaking, the answer to your first question is yes, and the second is no. What wealth is, is capability, how easy it becomes to accomplish a greater and greater variety of tasks. A rich man can construct a factory, pay workers to build it for him. A rich man can start his own independent space agency, and get off this rock. Poor folks can't do that.

You worry about grunt labor, as in who will clean the latrines and cut sugarcane. As history has shown, when labor becomes too expensive for a given task, using automation or mechanical means to do the same job become more attractive. Automatic cane harvesting or self cleaning toilets. They may be more expensive, but if they become competitive with labor, people will start buying them.

Which means that those laborers can then do other jobs, like designing spaceships as one example. Granted it required more education to design a spacecraft than clean a toilet, but I am not one that sees education as a bad thing."

Drakon, you seem to be confusing 'individual wealth' with 'standard of living.' These are two very different concepts. Perhaps when you discuss 'wealth' you mean the wealth of a society as a whole.

In this case, you are not moving people up the economic ladder at all. You are merely gilding the ladder. Adding gold filigree and engraved scrollwork. I may have twenty vials of penecillin in my refrigerator, and the 15th century King of England may have no vials and no refrigerators, but it can't be logically argued that I am as wealthy as he.

Rather, some aspects of my standard of living have improved to be superior to his. I do not own thousands of acres of land. I do not have the ability to launch a hundred ships in a Naval campaign. I can not even fund a single exploratory expedition to the New World. But I can survive an infection.

That's standard of living, not wealth.

Essentially, it's technology.

At the inception of this country, poor people typically had several acres of land, a pony, and a cabin they built with their own two hands. They had wood burning stoves and chamber pots and windows. For entertainment they had the occasional fair and the local ho-down.

I have a used car, a rented parcel and house, and a microwave. I have a toilet and an air conditioner. For entertainment, I have Satellite TV, this computer, and the occasional movie.

My standard of living has increased, but my rung on the ladder hasn't moved an inch. Wealth is not standard of living. It is a concept in relativity. It is where YOU are relative to EVERYONE ELSE.

If we were all owners of spaceship companies, we wouldn't be able to get anything accomplished. Not without 'grunt labor.' The definition of 'grunt labor' may change with the times. It may be the farmer peasant of yesteryear or the tractor operator of today. It may be the toilet cleaner of today or the automatic toilet cleaner repairman of tomorrow. It may involve the 'less educated folks' of yesterday, or the 'less educated folks' of today. It's still the same rung. The same grunt. The standard of living changes, the position on the ladder stays the same.

I also think this is the only way a human society can work. I agree that human greed is the factor that makes society work. I don't believe that the economic ladder can be pushed over, to lay flat atop the ground. Too much motivation is lost when everyone shares the same standard of living, and no acquisition of wealth is possible or desirable.

If we lived in a socialist economy, I'd be quite content to go back to my job as a security guard, babysitting a room of goods for eight hours while daydreaming of what I'd like to do when I get off of work. Man, to do that and get the same buying power as a physician? An engineer? A pilot? That would be sweet.

And that is why I think we agree that capitalism works WITH the human psyche, and not against it. Our only sticking point is the definition of wealth.

--Anthony

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:45 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Sorry, that posted twice. Is there a way to delete a message?

On the issue of National Security...

I can now be arrested, and held, not be told why I have been arrested and held.

It is also, curiously, becoming more common to be tried in a private trial. It's happening right now. What is happening inside these private trials? I don't know. They're private for reasons of national security.

--Anthony

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 11, 2003 3:32 AM

I would have to see actual reports of this going on. Are we talking banning reporters or jsut cameras in the court room? However, I do understand the national security concerns here.

In intelligence, the highest classified material is that related to "sources and methods". Sources are essentially spies that work for us. Methods are means by which we listen in or observe the bad guys. These have to be protected, because otherwise we lose that source (i.e. our spy gets killed) or we lose that method, the bad guys find a way around it. Either way, we get blinded to the bad guys actions and that makes it harder to prevent another attack. Meaning a lot of folks die.

Like I said before, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If the choice is a private trial or another 9-11, sorry the cost is too great for an open trial. It is worrisome, I will agree, and its a bitch of a choice. But again, freedom don't mean a thing if you are dead.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 11, 2003 3:43 AM

I see where you are coming from, but I don't agree it is gilding the ladder. The entire ladder is moving up.

You may not have the individual wealth, (and hence the capabilities) of say Bill Gates. You may not be able to fund an expedition to the New World, like our 15th century king. But the king can be felled with a sneeze. You, thanks to medical technology, are a lot tougher than that, have a longer life expectancy, and can still do a lot more than he could.

His options for entertainment were plays and music, all preformed live. You have 200 cable channels, the internet loaded with songs, and even entire television programs. DVDs and music CDs are sheer fantasy to that king.

Yes, the definition of an entry level job, or 'grunt labor', has and will change. There will always be rich folks and poor folks, just as their will always be engineers and actors. But that same grunt has more personal wealth today, than dreamed of by those 15th century kings. It might not apply to chartering privateers against the spainish crown, but then it does not need to. In other areas, and other capabilities, it exceeds those modest dreams.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 11, 2003 3:56 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Freedom don't mean a thing if you are dead."

I understand where you are coming from, Drakon. I do. This is the very philosophy that keeps society running smoothly.

And we both agree that there is a line. The line may differ from person to person. But it's there. (At least, I hope it is.)

This country was, after all, won by people who honestly did believe that Freedom is worth Dying for.

--Anthony

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 11, 2003 4:09 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

On the other hand, it might be argued they felt Freedom was worth Killing for.

--Ant

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hmmm, Anthony- do you every play chess against yourself? If you do, who wins?

It's just that I noticed you on both sides of an argument several times. You must have a very flexible mind!

And now I'm going to have to jump in here real quick on my lunch half-hour!
------------------
"The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create" So- the employess of a bowling-ball factory own all of the bowling balls because they created them. Right?
-------------------------------
"How do you get the field hands up the economic ladder. I don't see theft as a viable solution, whether it is by the State or some other agency."

As you said, ownership works only because it's a concept we all buy into. Basically, it's an artificial construct that is defined and defended by the State. The clearest example of the artificiality of ownership is the concept of "intellectual property"- owning an idea. This "thing" which can not be felt, smelled, or tasted can somehow be bought and sold -usually, I might add, by corporations who make you sign your rights away if you do any sort of research or development whatsoever. (I have horror stories on the abuse of this, but I'll have to get into that later.)

So, if the laws governing "ownership" changes, is that theft?
-----------------------------
"As for his (Dean's) position on Iraq, I am unclear what he would have done. Would he have stopped at Afghanistan? Would he have gone after Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria? "

That's a little like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?". That pre-supposes *something* had to be done with Hussein. If we had just let the UN do it's work, I'm sure that we would have reached the conclusion by now that no WMD existed.

OTOH, something clearly needs to be done about terrorism.

----------------------

"Is it bad to have people who are lower on the economic ladder? Is it bad to have people higher on the economic ladder?

Only if you can find some better, more universal motivation than earning money to buy goods and services.

If everyone owned a castle and 1000 acres of land, something BESIDES economic well being would have to be found to motivate them. The intrinsic goodness of mankind isn't sufficient to the task"

You obviously have not tapped into the Free Software movement. Right now, people have to perform stupid back-breaking danagerous work because that's what's available. But if all that was automated away, people would still be getting up in the ayem because they need to feel that they have some control over their lives and their environment, and one way to do that is to work.

------------------------------
"The only way to prevent that, is to fix the rules such that the successful are penalized specifically for their success. This has a proven track record of not making more folks richer, but making everyone poorer. Why try if all you are gonna get is punished?"

Actually, money (or other tangible reward) is an extremely poor motivator. The astounding discoveries, the important breakthroughs, even the most successful businesses were not created due to tangible reward. To give you an example- a study of the extremely wealthy businessmen- the robber barons (including Bill Gates)- found that these men had certain persoanlity traits in common- they lacked empathy to a pathological degree, they were highly focused, and they played their markets as if it were a GAME. Money was only a marker. Similalry, the scientists who make the greatest breakthroughs are doing it because they have a deep desire to know.
--------------------------------
"I would need a specific example of what you mean. From what I am seeing, the Fed still need a warrent, which means going in front of a judge"

No, they don't. The Patriot Act eliminated the need for warrants for all kinds of searches, including electronic and "sneak and peek".

---------------------------

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:29 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Hmmm, Anthony- do you every play chess against yourself? If you do, who wins? It's just that I noticed you on both sides of an argument several times. You must have a very flexible mind!"

LOL! I suppose I argue as often with the purpose of understanding a topic, as to defend a viewpoint. There are many things in my life that I've only been able to fully comprehend after a good argument. Sometimes arguing from both sides can be doubly enlightening. :-)

"Actually, money (or other tangible reward) is an extremely poor motivator. The astounding discoveries, the important breakthroughs, even the most successful businesses were not created due to tangible reward. To give you an example- a study of the extremely wealthy businessmen- the robber barons (including Bill Gates)- found that these men had certain persoanlity traits in common- they lacked empathy to a pathological degree, they were highly focused, and they played their markets as if it were a GAME. Money was only a marker. Similalry, the scientists who make the greatest breakthroughs are doing it because they have a deep desire to know."

It may be that scientists and engineers invent because that's what they enjoy doing. However, it is usually through financial contributions that these inventions are facilitated. To say that the pursuit of money plays no part in work seems erroneous to me.

I would love to have a job doing what I enjoy. However, unless there is money involved that can support me in my endeavor, I won't be doing it.

Thus, I do a job I don't enjoy. Why? Because of money. Not necessarily the lust for money itself, but because I need money to get the things I require and desire.

If I could have all the things I require and desire without working at a job I dislike... then I wouldn't do that job.

I would only have hobbies. Or sleeping in the shade.

Bill Gates probably isn't motivated by money, I agree. But money is the thing that gets him what he really wants. Be it power, or merely the sense that he is winning at life.

--Anthony

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:29 PM

"On the other hand, it might be argued they felt Freedom was worth Killing for."

I have to admit I wince every time someone talks about sacrificing their lives to help others, the whole 'greater love' stuff bothers me. There is a difference between risking death, and committing suicide, and the latter cases are pretty rare. There is also a difference between dying at the hands of others, and choosing one's own manner of death.

Flight 93. Need I say more.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 12, 2003 12:15 AM

To answer these one at a time:

""The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create" So- the employess of a bowling-ball factory own all of the bowling balls because they created them. Right?"

No. The owner of the factory either bought the factory, or had it constructed. He assumed the risks in running the busines, as well as the risk of payroll. He contracts out to his employees for their labor, offering a fixed return for their labor, despite the market, for as long as the business is viable. It is the owner of the factory that assembles the workers, the machinery, purchases the raw material, etc. to create bowling balls.

The employees own their labortheir skill, which they rent out to their employer for the bowling balls. The owner owns the factory, the machinery and the raw materials, which he does not sell to the employee. The employee gets money, in exchange for coming to work on a project that the owner wants done.
--------------------
"So, if the laws governing "ownership" changes, is that theft?"

In a moral sense, its still theft, even if the legal sense changes. It still has a negative effect on the economy for everyone.

Just because something is a mental construct does not mean that it is bad or easily tossed aside. Again traffic lights. Here, red means stop. Why not green? or blue? It does not matter which light you use, as long as all agree. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if everyone disregarded traffic lights, or thought it was okay to dismiss them simply because they were a mental construct.

The concept of ownership is pretty valuable to society, along with prohibitions against force or fraud.
-------------------------------
That's a little like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?".

I disagree strongly. First of all, I see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. First, as it provides flypaper for jihadis that would be fighting here in the states (or elsewhere) otherwise. And second it comes down to the real root causes, the failure of Arab civilization at providing for the lives and happiness of its population. They need a successful Arab country, to show them that modernity is not incompatable with Islam.

You are assuming that since no WMDs have been reported found yet, that none exist. I note a recent news report of 6 Chinese farmers uncovering several barrels of mustard gas, secluded by the Japanese back in 1945 and not discovered till earlier this year. Also the fully armed Nazi bombers recently found under the Berlin Airport. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially in cases like this.

From a legal standpoint, this is a bit of a red herring. Saddam was required by UN resolution to prove he no longer had WMDs or their programs. He failed to do this, to comply with the UN and the armistice he signed in 1991. His failure to comply with the UN is the legal reason for the war. If you accept the UN as a legal authority, its authority does not mean much if one can disregard its resolutions with impunity.

It should also be noted that Czech intelligence is still standing behind their report of a meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence.

And besides, the Iraqi people are far better off without Saddam and his sons. So is the rest of the world.
--------------------------
"Actually, money (or other tangible reward) is an extremely poor motivator."

I find this difficult to believe. While it is obviously better to do something you love instead of something you don't, you still need to eat. Which means either growing your own food, or paying someone else to do it for you. You can't pay if you ain't got no money, you cannot access the property of others unless you can pay them for if.

Whether you see money as a measure of value, or simply a marker in a game, its still a great motivator.
------------------------
"No, they don't."

Again from what I have seen, that is not true. I do note that Ashcroft is attempting to get "administrative subpena powers" but so far that is not in the law to date.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 12, 2003 9:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

First, my apologies to the other folks here for WAAAAY off-topic thread. If there was somewhere else to discuss with equally intelligent, thoughtful and forward-looking people then we could move over there.

So, Drakon, to make sure I got this straight, when you say "The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create" it's not really the people who create that get to keep, it's the owner of the tools that gets to keep.

There're a lot of different thoughts to pursue on this concept, and I'm just going to mention two b4 I get to the most important question.

1) If people are motivated by money then the system you describe incentivizes ownership over work.

2) When ownership itself becomes a commodity (think stock market) then it becomes subject to speculation, divorcing the value of the company from production and distorting the motives of those in power. (think Enron)

Here's the important question:

What happens to the money that the owner gets to keep?

-----------------------------
"The concept of ownership is pretty valuable to society..."

I can give you an example of how the concept of ownership has become a destructive juggernaut and that is the concept of intellectual property and its effect on research and development. I have a lot of specifics on hand, examples of both how intellectual property stifled development and how shared ideas enhanced progress, but I'm going to sum it all up with this example- If we had to pay the software engineer, creator of the transistor, the developer of plastics, all the way back to the inventor of the alphabet and the discoverer of fire every time we wrote on a PC... or worse, were stymied from using these tools because of patent and copyright restrictions- we porobably would have never gotten to the disovery of agriculture.
--------------------------------------

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on Iraq. I sense serious "mission creep" and I think it's all being pushed by the neocons' grandiose schemes to remake the world. But we'll each have to just reserve the right to say "I told you so". Or better yet, let's make a bet: If by March they have not YET found even one WMD (not a "program"- I mean a real, honest-to-god weapon) then you can say "You were right and I was wrong". With a smile.

The inverse goes for me. Deal?

----------------------
I read an interesting and true story about three environmental activtists found GPS trackers under their bumpers. I would have blown it off as a black helicopter story, except (1) it appeared in a credible newspaper and (2) it was followed within a month by THIS RULING

"Satellite Tracking of Suspects Requires a Warrant, Court Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OLYMPIA, Wash., Sept. 11 (AP) — The police cannot attach a Global Positioning System tracker to a suspect's vehicle without a warrant, the Washington Supreme Court said today in the first such ruling in the nation"

Obviously there is more going on than you think.

But as far as the Patriot Act itself is concerned, there is a detailed analysis that appears here:

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_ef
f_usa_patriot_analysis.php

Exerpts from the analysis are here:

"USAPA expands all four traditional tools of surveillance -- wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas.

Be careful what you put in that Google search
The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans... by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THE TARGET of the investigation

Nationwide roving wiretaps ...The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on ANY PERSON OR ENTITIY REGARDLESS of whether that person or entity is named in the order.

ISPs hand over more user information"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 12, 2003 6:45 PM

In most factories, a single worker does a specific job, and adds to the creation of a product, rather than creates the entire product from scratch. He does own his labor, his creation, his effort, which he is selling to his employer, at a profit to himself. Besides which, without those tools and the factory and raw materials, the employees would not be creating anything. And there is the added risk the owner assumes, that the employee does not.

"What happens to the money that the owner gets to keep?" Its the onwer's money, he does with it whatever he likes, upgrades the factory, expands business operations, invests in R&D (which can be extremely risky as one never knows if a particular project will ever pay off in the long run) buys food, or whatever the onwer does.

"1) If people are motivated by money then the system you describe incentivizes ownership over work."

I don't see this as a problem. People work in order to buy things, to own things. At one level, this is consumables like food which feeds both worker and owner alike. Unless you want to eat someone else's food, this is not a problem.

"2) When ownership itself becomes a commodity (think stock market) then it becomes subject to speculation, divorcing the value of the company from production and distorting the motives of those in power. (think Enron)"

Again, not seeing a problem here. It seems you have a bug about ownership in general. If you own something but cannot sell it to someone else, then in what sense do you really own it? The more restrictions you place on the concept of ownership, the more it becomes even more of a fiction.

Also, the idea behind stock markets and such is to accumulate capital such that larger and larger projects can be completed. That factory does not grow on trees, it has to be built, the tools and raw materials have to be purchased before it sells a single unit of product. Meaning workers have to be paid whether or not the factory owner sees a dime on his investment.

Thomas Sowell discusses how various commodity markets works in his book, "Basic Economics" and how they add value. How commodity markets insure a price, and how speculators are in essence buying risk, assuming the risks of a flucuating market from the producers. And how this helps move commodities and products from whete they are overabundant to places where they are less available and hence more valuable.

The big problem with Enron and other companies (as I remember) is that they were lying on their books and financial reports, lying about the profits they were taking, lying about the value they were adding to the products they were selling. Committing fraud.
---------------------------
On the other hand, if patents and copyrights were not in existence, then what would be the point of inventing new things? Simply for the undefined joy of discovery, or other things a person can't eat? Unless it benefits the inventor, or writer, then there is no incentive for creating, and lets face it, the inventiveness of the human mind is probably the only real unlimited resource there is.

I know it can be a pain having to pay royalties for someone's invention for the 20 years their patent is in effect, but sometimes its a pain not to be able to pick Farmer John's apples growing in his orchard too.
----------------------
No deal. Like I pointed out, the Chinese had just discovered earlier this year several barrels of mustard gas left behind by the Japanese during WW2.

And like I said before it is a bit of a red herring. We knew Saddam had WMDs, we got the photos of the dead Kurds and dead Irani soldiers to prove it. Saddam was obligated by both the armistice from the first Gulf War and about 17 UN resolutions to prove that he had gotten rid of them. Saddam never complied. The inspections were never intended as a game of hide and seek, but to give Saddam a chance to make good on his promises and obligations. To show the world he no longer had them. Again, Saddam failed to comply.

You talk about the neocons' desire to "remake the world" failing to deal with whether that is a good thing or not, not dealing with their vision of how the world "should be" and whether that makes us safer or not. A free and democratic Iraq, without WMDs makes us all safer, and removes the root cause of terrorism, as well as the means for conducting atrocities that would pale next to 9-11. Its going to be a tough job, but swatting the mosquitos is only a short term solution. ya gotta drain the swamp.
---------------------------------
Again, you seem to be missing the point behind the expanded powers of the PATRIOT Act. Which is to prevent another 9-11 attack. Like I've said before, even the observance of a right comes at a cost, and if that cost is the deaths of thousands more, or perhaps millions more lives, then the cost is too high.

We are not dealing with ordinary criminals, whose actions would affect a relatively handful of folks. We are at war for our very survival, our lives. With folks who want us dead or enslaved to their vision of a remade world. Failure to act, or blinding to potential actions of terrorists has the potential of getting a lot of folks killed.

One way or the other, the world is going to get remade. Its a question of whether its according to the concepts of freedom as we have here, or an extremely strict version of Islam (that seems incompatable with most of Islam as a matter of fact)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 12, 2003 9:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

In more or less reverse order:

"You seem to be missing the point behind the expanded powers of the PATRIOT Act. Which is to prevent another 9-11 attack... even the observance of a right comes at a cost, and if that cost is the deaths of thousands more, or perhaps millions more lives, then the cost is too high."

You seem to be missing the point of the Revolutionary War and the Bill of Rights.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"- Benjamin Franklin.

In any case, there is no evidence that the Patriot Act would have prevented another 9-11. It is, however, being used to stifle dissent along lines that have nothing to do with terrorism.
------------------------------------

"No deal. Like I pointed out, the Chinese had just discovered earlier this year several barrels of mustard gas left behind by the Japanese during WW2."

You know, if those barrels were the ONLY evidence of WWII that had JUST been discovered, then I would smack my forehead and say "I'll be gob-smackered, you're right!!!" But in fact there was evidence of WWII laying all the place: tons of unexploded ordnance, shells, mines, barbed wire, emplacements and so forth. The point is that if WMD existed in the numbers that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell were ranting about, ready to be deployed "in 45 minutes" (yeah, right) SOMETHING would show up. I mean, where's your common sense?

You're just chicken- nyah nyah nyah!

--------------------------------

"We knew Saddam had WMDs..."

Of course we did- we sold them to him and helped him use them...

"To prove that he had gotten rid of them"

According to the inspectors, he was playing games and the UN didn't support them very well. But the inspectors were willing to continue so we should have let them.

--------------------------
"A free and democratic Iraq, without WMDs makes us all safer, and removes the root cause of terrorism, as well as the means for conducting atrocities that would pale next to 9-11. Its going to be a tough job, but swatting the mosquitos is only a short term solution. ya gotta drain the swamp."

What is the difference between "free" and "democratic" I'd like to find out what your vision is for Iraq.

Do you really think we CAN drain the swamp? I have serious doubts. We couldn't do it in Vietnam. If you dimiss Vietnam as irrelvant, look at the Israelis. They have every possible advantage:

1) They surround the Palestinian population centers completely and can (and do) blockade them.

2) Living cheek by jowl for decades and having an effective security they seem to know the who, where, and when of the terrorist groups. (They sure pick out their cars with missiles pretty accurately!)

3) They have been bulldozing relatives' homes, uprooting orchards, bombing administrative centers and pretty much doing everything they can to penalize civilian supporters for decades.

4) They have superiority of arms including (I might add) helicopter gunships and WMD, and billions of dollars of aid from the USA.

And you know what??? It ain't working. My point is, if Israel can't stop suicide bombings under those circumstances, what makes us think we will be successful in Iraq?

--------------------

"On the other hand, if patents and copyrights were not in existence, then what would be the point of inventing new things? "

I got news for you- a lot of inventions occured before there were patents or copyrights, and they would continue at an accelerated pace without them. I don't want to get into a very long discussion, just trust me on this because I know an awful lot about biomedical research.
---------------------------

"...at a profit to himself." This is a misuse of the word "profit" which is NOT synoynous with "reward" or "paycheck".

"...without those tools and the factory"

Who created the tools and the factory?

"Its the onwer's money, he does with it whatever he likes, upgrades the factory, expands business operations, invests in R&D (which can be extremely risky as one never knows if a particular project will ever pay off in the long run) buys food, or whatever the onwer does. "

OK, so here's the conundrum-

The bowling-ball workers cannot, with their pay, buy back all of the bowling balls that they made. Some of that $$ went to pay the electric bill, which mostly winds up in the hands of the power company employees (less profit) and some went for semi-processed materials (same outcome) but the AGGREGATE is that the working population can't buy back what they just made.

You're a business owner and you need to increase your profit margin to stay in business because you know sure as hell that the guy down the street is going to do the same. So you invest in equipment that lets you do more with fewer people- productivity increases (something our business reports are always happy about.)

Or, you take your money and you invest it where labor is cheaper.

Or even better yet, you buy up your competitors and consolidate operations and lay people off.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/13/national/13JOBS.html?hp

Since you're now producing more with fewer dollrs, returning less $$$$ on the aggregate to working people - who buys your goods???? I know it seems like a trivial question, but it's at the heart of every economic policy decision made in the world.

------------------

Whew! I'm tired!! More later!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2003 2:54 AM

"In any case, there is no evidence that the Patriot Act would have prevented another 9-11. It is, however, being used to stifle dissent along lines that have nothing to do with terrorism."

And yet here you are still going on about it.

I am hearing a lot of dissent, tons of criticism. At the volume levels that are being raised, I would hate to think how loud it would be if none were being stifled, assuming any is.

Tim Robbins can still go in front of the National Press Club and complain about being silenced. The irony of that one instance seems lost on a lot of folks.

So I have severe doubts that this is the case.
---------------------------------------
"You're just chicken- nyah nyah nyah!"

LOL, like I said, the WMD claims of yours are a red herring. Besides, are you saying the Iraqi people and the world in general is better off with Saddam in power?

The thing about the Chinese find was that it was found 50 years after the war. WMD were hidden, buried in the ground, for 50 years before being found. Saddam has had 12 years to hide his weapons and weapons programs. I don't think the Japanese were in China quite that long.

Also you talk about the "evidence of WW2" and seem to ignore the dead Kurds and dead Iranian troops, dead specifically because Saddam had used chemical weapons on them. As far as I know, the Japanese never used chemical weapons during WW2.

So again. He had them. He was required to prove he had gotten rid of them. He gave us no indication that he had, and every indication that he was hiding them, all in violations of several UN resolutions and his agreement at the armistice. To simply assume he got rid of them on the sly does not make any sense.
---------------------------
"But the inspectors were willing to continue so we should have let them."

Again, you are missing the point here. It was never supposed to be a game of hide and seek. Saddam was playing games, actually that particular game and that was not what the inspections were all about. After 12 years of that nonsense, it was getting pretty silly.

So the inspectors were willing to play. Fortunately not everyone else was.
---------------------------------------
"Israel can't stop suicide bombings under those circumstances, what makes us think we will be successful in Iraq?"

I think it will work out, because freedom is actually better than living under slavery, regardless of whether you call it Ba'athism, Nazism, Islamic Theocracy, Comunism or what have you. People want to be free, to live and be happy. The multitude of governmental systems that have been tried have failed world wide, except for liberal democracy (Majority rule with respect for minority rights)

Our goals and the goals of the Iraqi people are far different that the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Palestinians want the Jews dead, and the Jews want to live. We don't want another 9-11, and most Iraqis do not want to give us one either. We want a peaceful and prosperous Iraq, and indications so far are that the Iraqis want the same thing as well.

I don't know if it even can be done. I think it can. I do see what can happen if we don't even try, which are more and more 9-11s. So I am willing to side with those who are willing to try to drain that swamp, rather than sit on the sidelines and tell them it can't be done.
-----------------------------------------
I find it hard to simply take your word for it, concerning patents. Someone produces something of value to you, something that you did not need to produce yourself, they have done something valuable for you. I don't see screwing them over, and not rewarding their efforts as any kind of a good thing.
----------------------------------
"...at a profit to himself." This is a misuse of the word "profit" which is NOT synoynous with "reward" or "paycheck".

Go back and read the whole thing again. It costs so much to run a car, to get to work. To cover the expenses incurred in a job, whether it is the purchase of tools, special clothing, etc. The worker gets paid above and beyond that in their paycheck. In short, he makes a profit on his costs of coming to work.

And its not a reward, as he earns that pay, by doing work for his employer, work that may not be valuable to himself, but is to his employer.

"You're a business owner and you need to increase your profit margin" No. I need to increase the overall profit. The per unit margin is not as important as how much overall I get for providing the product. In many instances, I can increase my total profits by reducing my prices, my per unit profit margin.

"Since you're now producing more with fewer dollrs, returning less $$$$ on the aggregate to working people - who buys your goods???? I know it seems like a trivial question, but it's at the heart of every economic policy decision made in the world."

, think this through. No one has to buy your product. No one sticks a gun in your face and forces you to buy goods and services. If you do not have the money to buy them, you simply don't buy them. And the company who makes them, ends up with a bunch of bowling balls and no cash.

The worker in a bowling ball factory did not make all those bowling balls. Not by himself. He did not build the factory, nor buy the raw materials. It is the company that makes the bowling balls, the combination of efforts of all the workers, and that includes the work done by management, the decisions they make as to where and when to buy raw material, where to put the factory, who to hire, etc. etc. etc. All that mental effort, that risk assumption, that capital that is spent, that is more important than the actions of one guy on the production line.

Now, if you are making bowling balls in your garage, doing all this work yourself, buying the tools and raw materials yourself, then you own those balls. Just as the company owns the balls it makes.

And if no one buys your product, because they have no money, then your company goes bankrupt. It ceases to exist. You've wasted your money, because the tools and materials have to be paid for, usually before you can take delivery.

What happens is if your costs get lower, you can lower your prices and end up with the same profit. In fact, even greater profit overall as people tend to buy the lower priced goods, all other factors being equal. Your competitor starts losing business to you.

Now, there are several flaws in your line of argument. First off, it assumes that there is only one company that is the sole demand on the labor market. Not true. All other companies in a given geography are part of the demand, both on labor and on supplies of raw materials. Labor goes to the highest bidder, just like raw materials.

Second, productivity increases are a good thing. Doing more with less is the entire direction technology has been heading in for a long time. This means lower costs and lower prices to your end consumer. Given a steady income, that means the individual can afford a wider variety of products with the same amount of money, the same dollars can buy more things.

I still have my first computer that cost me $2,700 back in 1980. I don't use it, its locked in a closet hopelessly obsolete, and now use my laptop which costs me $1,200 earlier this year. To me, this is a good thing, and is brought about by those "productivity increases" you don't like.

Third and probably the most damaging thing is the implicit assumption that the only way to make a living is to work for someone else.

A long time ago, (1992) a young womand and her small child returned to Scotland after a failed marriage. Having no money, and returning to a bad job market, ended up on the dole. So she got a typewriter, and some paper and wrote a book.

Earlier this year, just prior to the fifth book in the Harry Potter series, J.K.Rowlings is worth 5 Billion (with a B) dollars, more than the queen of England. She did that herself, wrote the stories and books all by herself, then contracted to publishing houses to print them and sell them. Not as an employee of a print shop, but as independent (and at the time, broke) writer.

Self employment does work. Businesses are started by ordinary people every day. Not all succeed as spectularly as Harry Potter has done, but still being employed by someone else is not the only way of making a living.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2003 7:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"And yet here you are still going on about it."

Actually, I was followed -presumably by the FBI- for a couple of days after my ID was turned in by a webmaster. I worried out loud about biological warfare a couple of days b4 the anthrax letters were mailed. So yeah, here I am.

--------------------------
Everyone knows that Saddam had WMD, nobody better than Rumsfeld since he helped ship production materials.

"But it was Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Baghdad which opened of the floodgates during 1985-90... some $1.5 billion worth-- including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons equipment and ... critical components for missile delivery systems. A 1994 GAO Letter Report (GAO/NSIAD-94-98) [said] some 771 weapons export licenses for Iraq were approved during this six year period....by the U.S. Department of Commerce."

The WMD were Sarin, cyclosarin, VX, and mustard gas, liquid anthrax, and botulism. But NOBODY has ever claimed that Iraq continued to manufacture these agents after 1991. ALL of these agents- with the exception of mustard gas- deteriorate over a few years. SO, what's the scenario?

OOps, gotta get back with ya. Time to get my daughter off to bed!

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect
/cmfaff/813/813we26.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 15, 2003 3:53 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

YOUR BANK CAN BLACKLIST YOU

In the name of homeland security, financial institutions can close accounts and cancel credit cards with little explanation. Complaints are slowly mounting.

Hossam Algabri ripped open his statement from Fleet Bank one day after work last November, and began to read: "We regret to inform you that we have decided that it is not in our best interest to continue your banking relationship with us."

Algabri assumed that a mistake had been made. He hadn't bounced a single check since he opened an account at the institution's predecessor, BayBank, 11 years earlier.

As he dialed customer service, he began to wonder: Did this have anything to do with the war on terrorism?

"You hear about it all the time, but you never think it will happen to you," says the Egyptian native, who came to the United States at age 12 and became a citizen this year.

Algabri sat on hold that day for 20 minutes. Nine months later he is still, in essence, on hold. The bank has told him that his account was flagged for suspicious activity, but says that is all it is at liberty to reveal. He has since opened an account elsewhere.

Banks have long played a role in stopping the flow of money among suspected terrorists, money launderers, and narcotraffickers. But the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, raised the bar. More watch lists have been generated, more institutions have become accountable -- and more consumers may feel the heat.

No attention to consumer complaints
And while alleged government violations of civil rights under the USA Patriot Act have received steady attention, consumer complaints in the private sector have fallen largely off the radar.

"No one paid attention to the lists because they primarily affected foreign nationals," says Peter Fitzgerald, an expert on government watch lists at Stetson University in Florida. "Now it affects those who do business with those who do business with those who do business with someone suspected of terrorism."

Financial institutions are under pressure from the government. They face stiff fines -- up to $1 million in some cases -- if they don't stop money flows or freeze accounts.

Some observers worry, however, that financial discrimination has become an unwanted byproduct. Under an article of the Patriot Act, some investigations now are conducted in secret, and American consumers such as Algabri increasingly are finding their accounts closed without explanation -- and with little recourse.

"Blacklisting was set up as a foreign-policy tool," but as the practice creeps into the realm of criminality, there are questions about whether the mechanisms in place protect those who are accused, Fitzgerald says.

Targeted financial sanctions are widely supported, both in and out of the financial community, as a homeland-security measure. They are intended to punish "the bad guys," say sources, instead of an entire nation, such as Iraq.

But are its tentacles reaching too far, gathering up batches of mistaken identities? And are financial institutions too often erring on the side of caution?

A Treasury Department watch list
Algabri's story probably dates back to his former employee, Ptech, of Quincy, Mass. The software company made headlines last winter when it became public that one of its financiers, a Saudi national, showed up on a Treasury Department watch list.

The company was later cleared, but Algabri's account -- as well as those of four Muslim and Arab colleagues -- remains closed. Each received the same letter from Fleet on Nov. 2, about a month before the Ptech story broke, according to sources involved in the case.

Algabri says he believes in the nation's war on terrorism, but not the "overzealous" one that is unfolding today. "I believe they closed my account because I am a Muslim," he says. He plans to file a discrimination complaint against FleetBoston Financial in the coming weeks.

Fleet Bank did not return calls to discuss Algabri's account.

Accounts closed, credit cards cancelled
According to civil rights advocates, consumer complaints regarding account closures, canceled credit cards, and disrupted wire transfers have increasingly surfaced across the nation.

In Boston, Fleet Bank has closed at least 15 accounts of Muslim and Arab holders without explanation, according to the Massachusetts office of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. In New Jersey and New York City, dozens of Muslims have been asked to provide large amounts of documentation without cause, or face credit-card cancellation, say several sources, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

"Recently we have started to see a number of cases ... all of which seem to have something to do with the Patriot Act," says Christopher Dunn, a legal adviser with the New York branch of the ACLU. But it is a nascent issue, he says. "We are only now trying to understand what is happening."

In fact, the pockets of complaints that have bubbled up are thought to signal a much deeper problem.

"Many of [those targeted] are immigrants. They don't want to draw attention to themselves," says Khurram Wahid, a legal adviser for the Council of American-Islamic Relations in Washington. "They don't want themselves on any system complaining about anything."

Blacklisting drug traffickers, terrorists
Blacklisting dates back to World War I, says Fitzgerald, when it was used principally as a political tool -- to make a statement about an unsavory regime. In the 1990s, President Clinton used blacklisting to stymie narcotics traffickers and terrorists. After Sept. 11, its role expanded once again.

The government's principal watch list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) -- generated by the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) at the Department of the Treasury -- currently lists more than 5,000 individuals and entities with whom the United States is not to do business.

Financial institutions are required to cross-reference their customers and the constantly revised, 80-page OFAC list to make sure they have no matches. They do so via outside vendors or within in-house compliance departments. Any time a transfer occurs, for example, the names of sender and receiver are run through a program comparable to a computer spell-checker, which pulls up all possible "hits."

Cross-referencing is time consuming. "But it's the law, and we abide by the law," says John Hall, spokesman for the American Bankers Association. "We are doing our part in the fight against terrorism."

While the OFAC list is available on the Treasury Department's Web site, investigations of suspected terrorists or money launderers under Section 314 of the USA Patriot Act are more controversial, at least from a consumer perspective. Section 314 authorizes the government to communicate with financial institutions about suspicious activity. The institution then reports to the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The customer is unaware that authorities have contacted the bank, but may find his or her account inexplicably closed.

For months, Fleet Bank refused to give Algabri -- and his lawyers -- a reason for shutting down his account. After two meetings with bank officials, Algabri found out that a one-time withdrawal of $7,000, as well as his habit of depositing different checks in individual envelopes at the same time, constituted suspicious behavior.

While banks are not required to shut down accounts -- as they are when a name appears on the OFAC list -- the government does instruct institutions to be prudent. In most cases, that means closing down the account.

"The institution has to make a decision," says John Byrne, senior counsel at the American Bankers Association. "A 314 is a serious demand. ... If they are contacting you, it's for a good reason."

Banks hiding behind Patriot Act
But doubts remain about mistaken identities. "People get accused, then cleared, and there is no repercussion for accusing anyone," says Merrie Najimy, president of the Massachusetts branch of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. "Banks can hide behind ... the Patriot Act and can get away with what they want."

Consumers have also found themselves on unofficial lists spun from an FBI suspect list generated after Sept. 11. "That list got into private hands," says Lara Flint, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. "Many on that list have long since been cleared, but they are still feeling the ramifications," she says. "It's one example of how a list can get out of control."

Financial institutions acknowledge that closing customer accounts is not good business. Wire companies, for example, have been hit hard by having to disrupt customer transfers.

"And it has created a good deal of acrimony (among customers)," says Jorge Guerro, president of the National Money Transmitters Association. "They don't understand that we are under obligation by the government."

What are the protocols for investigations?
As Sept. 11 showed, seemingly insignificant transfers can support colossal terrorism. Now, corporate America is especially eager to show it is doing "the right thing," says W. Michael Hoffman, executive director of the Center for Business Ethics at Bentley College.

Still, there is a fine line between violating customers' rights and allowing terrorist money to flow through an institution, he says. "They must set up clear and transparent protocols for conducting any investigation."

Some call those protocols unclear. "The question is, how does one get oneself off one of these secret government watch lists?" asks Flint. "I think that's still an unanswered question."

Of the 15 people whose accounts have been closed in Boston, only Algabri has fought back.

"It draws attention to you, in your community," Algabri says. "It places a big question mark over your head." Most of his peers have opted to quietly set up accounts elsewhere.

"People feel powerless to do anything, so they've resigned themselves to being targets," says Salma Kazmi, assistant director of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center. "People just want to get on with their lives."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 15, 2003 3:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

One dentist appointment, one frantic school meeting, and one work emergency later... Where were we??? Oh, yes.

Thank you Anthony for the article. You know, when I read about the United States actions- everyone tracked, people blacklisted, people detained indefinitely- it sounds like the Alliance, doesn't it? It's funny how people like freedom in the abstract, isn't it?

------------------------------
Anyhow, back to Iraq, where our enlisted folks are struggling to make a profit for Haliburton.

Drakon- so, what is your nightmare scenario? That Saddam buried WMD a dozen years ago? That he was making them- and burying them- up to the last minute? That they were "ready to be deployed in 45 minutes"?

Couldn't door #3-if they were ready to be deployed in places Bush was CERTAIN he would find them, they would have already been found, wouldn't they? Couldn't be door #1, 'cause WMD inevitably deteriorate over time. So maybe it was door #2? Let me know.

"And anyway" you say "the world is better off without him". If THAT'S the reason why we went into Iraq, then why did we support him in the first place? Why didn't we go after some other equally reprehensible dictator, or all of them? Again- let me know.

--------------------------
AFA capitaliam is concerned- Ahem. Do you know what the word "aggregate" means? DO this mental experiment- take all of the paychecks in the world and add them up. Is the sum total of Joe and Jane Worker able to buy back- in total- everything that they made? If not, where does the money go?

HINT: I'm trying to point out a problem that was supremely evident during the Great Depression, one that Keynes tried to solve under Rooseveldt.

Internet research is allowed- this is an open book question!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 16, 2003 1:14 AM